Submitted by bostonshopper t3_1201rta in boston
> Ben said he did get a call from a supervisor in the enforcement services unit who told him under Chapter 90, Section 3 of the Mass Code, anyone who operates a motor vehicle for thirty days in a calendar year is required to register the vehicle.
Maybe I need to work on my legalese.
> Section 3. Subject to the provisions of section three A and except as otherwise provided in this section and in section ten, a motor vehicle or trailer owned by a non-resident who has complied with the laws relative to motor vehicles and trailers, and the registration and operation thereof, of the state or country of registration, may be operated on the ways of this commonwealth without registration under this chapter, to the extent, as to length of time of operation and otherwise, that, as finally determined by the registrar, the state or country of registration grants substantially similar privileges in the case of motor vehicles and trailers duly registered under the laws and owned by residents of this commonwealth; provided, that no motor vehicle or trailer shall be so operated on more than thirty days in the aggregate in any one year or, in any case where the owner thereof acquires a regular place of abode or business or employment within the commonwealth, beyond a period of thirty days after the acquisition thereof, except during such time as the owner thereof maintains in full force a policy of liability insurance providing indemnity for or protection to him, and to any person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle or trailer with his express or implied consent, against loss by reason of the liability to pay damages to others for bodily injuries, including death at any time resulting therefrom, caused by such motor vehicle or trailer, at least to the amount or limits required in a motor vehicle liability policy as defined in section thirty-four A.
(emphasis mine)
I'm reading that law as you need to register after 30 days if you don't have liability insurance. There's some exceptions listed later: you have to register if you're using it for a business and you have to register if a MA driver is going to be using it. There's also a very long paragraph covering students. The guide book also lists a registration requirement if the vehicle registration is from a state that isn't the owner's home state, but that's not listed in this subsection.
OP had stated that they had appropriate insurance, so I had assumed that they had accidentally admitted to one of those other subcategories (letting their friend drive the car, driving for Uber, etc.). Either there's a communication failure (RMV not explaining the exact violation correctly; OP not relaying information completely) or the RMV is asserting that the "except" clause wasn't applicable here.
Really great question. So, the RMV supervisor I've dealt with, as well as a lawyer I emailed with, both indicated that simply operating a vehicle 30+ days in a year could be enough to trigger the registration requirement, regardless of having liability insurance. Which, I agree, makes zero sense. So maybe it's still a communications error? But I very clearly don't fall under any of the other provisions, didn't do any Uber or lending my car or anything.
Yeah it really sounds like idiots in the RMV not understanding their own laws with a law targeting NH which doesn’t require insurance
So it sounds like the lawyer agrees with the RMV that they were reading the law correctly. I’ve said it elsewhere, but what irks me about the local news stories I’ve seen about this is that the framing has been that the RMV and the RMV person you had your appeal with are being said to be in the wrong, when it is the legislature that may be in the wrong. I know this doesn’t mean a lot to you as an out of stater who feels aggrieved by a kafkesk bureaucracy, but I’m irked at the local news who should know better deciding to run with the easy “local bureaucrats are assholes” angle rather than the nuanced “Massachusetts legislature is a horrible corrupt mess that can’t do anything behind its veils of secrecy “ angle. Signed, a local bureaucrat who has to do things that I don’t love, but don’t get to make decisions on.
*Kafkaesque
I was going to roll my eyes at you for correcting someone on the internet, then I realized that all I’ve been doing until Reddit knows what hour all day was being a pedant (m)asshole, and also that my spelling mistake was quite novel. So I’ll say thank you instead. 😁
Now kith
Exactly, the RMV operations and customer service could be vastly improved except for the fact that the only people that can enact real change are our legislators. Now if there were a chance that they might lose an election because their constituents were fed up they might do their job but for the most part, they have no opponent to fear. Bill Weld made it a priority and in a short time, the registry experience vastly improved. Instead of voting out these useless people who give us terrible public transport and RMV we vote D and head to AAA to try to get service.
I'd trust the lawyer's advice over my personal reading, but the "except" clause seemed so clear and it's so easy to accidentally admit to something seemingly innocent that I assumed that's what happened.
I'm really curious what the cost of actually registering would be. It'd be a major hassle for you (as I believe all of this needs to be done in person in MA), but the RMV appears to have a supervisor, the press office, and the ombudsman's office working to deal with an issue that amounts to a $60 plate fee. If that's all we're looking at, it makes sense to cut bait and issue a stern warning at this point. Maybe even a wag of the finger and a "now don't you do this again!"
> $60 plate fee. If that's all we're looking at, it makes sense to cut bait and issue a stern warning at this point.
They'd also be on the hook for excise tax which is $25 per $1000 of value (based on a percentage of MSRP based on how old the car is)
The MA excise tax page indicates it's less than that:
> If you own any motor vehicle that has been registered for less than a full calendar year, you will pay the excise based on the entire month when you registered that vehicle, as well as for the remaining months of the year.
> The abatement amount granted to taxpayers who have moved out of Massachusetts, transferred vehicle ownership, or had their vehicles stolen is based on the number of months remaining in the calendar year after the month the last eligibility requirement for the abatement takes place.
So, they would be charged excise tax starting the month they arrived and given an abatement for the months after they left. Even if we assume it's two calendar months, that's $4.16 per $1000 of vehicle value. His car model isn't specifically mentioned in the news story, but I think the picture is a Mazda 3 that's at least six years old (the headlights on post-2018 models are sharper and further down below the hood). If my guess is correct, then the excise is $4.16/$1000 times an excise calculation of 10% (more than 5 years old) of less than $30k original MSRP?
All I can imagine at this point is an accountant walking around the RMV yelling "With the plate fee, this bill comes to dozens of dollars. Dozens!"
Wait it’s 30 days cumulative if I’m reading that right? That’s pretty ridiculous lol. So if I spend a weekend every month they’d still suspend my license? Lol
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. --Hanlon's Razor (paraphrased)
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments